But, too much Marxism proved as bad as too much unionism, with it's unreasonable demands, — Michael Zwingli

Wrote it. I don't agree at all with many things that he said and find them impossible to happen. Against human nature in fact.

Sorry I m not interested in communist conversations at all anymore. Made it many times at the past. And now I find them endless and at that field most people (including myself) become most stubborn. I see no use in them anymore so as in my real life same here I strongly avoid them.

I don't agree but anyway that it's a huge different discussion.And not for that thread.

And saying that communists missinderstood Max is as naive as saying that Hitler had good ideas, only those damn Nazis took them out of context — stoicHoneyBadger

No it isn't the same at all. And apparently you didn't get my meaning . if you want to compare Hitler with Stalin fine. But with Marx? No absolutely way. Anyway i drop it.

Would you say the same about, for example, Hitler? :) — stoicHoneyBadger

Many people do that and I find it unacceptable and totally unfair to see these 2 ideologies as same. So I can never accept that.

If you are asking though if Hitler also proposed something. Of course he did! Even what it was is totally shit. Still many people buy it! It was a shitty proposal but still a proposal.

But come on I find it absolutely unethical to compare Marx with Hitler. And I repeat to you that communists translated Marx and did shitty things also. And yes as you say they murdered people too.

But if we examine them as just 2 pure ideologies. You can never claim that they are morally the same.

Just know that their goal is to get political power, not "make things better". — stoicHoneyBadger

So what? Everyone's goal is political power, at the end. But some also at the same time make things better indeed.

Not that I see Marx as right to everything but you can't condemn a huge communist ideology so easily and blame it that he didn't fight for justice with the right way . At least it was a fight. An effort as to try changing things. Even that it failed its "fingerprint" in humanity's map was positive. Imo at least.

Marx ideology with its wrongs (and they are many) moved humanity one step forward especially on human rights. The things that some communists did by "translating" Marx wasn't Marx 's fault. That's a story for another thread.

Don't get me wrong i am not communist and I find it as a "great impossible fairytale" but at least Marx PROPOSED something at last.
Humanity was and still is, full of philosophers who only do criticism to everything without proposing anything at all at the end.

Well Marx dared at last! So don't be so aphoristic about him. I find that unfair.

I more generally see a violent human nature evident throughout history, not specifically related to any religion, but to power and politics, with religion being one method used to control — Hanover

That is exactly what is all about. And his false in the base that he builds his argument on.

Blames for all human nature weaknesses religions. As if behind them aren't people.
And after Christianity especially. That Logical row simply makes no sense at all. Add to all these, the historical error that Christianity was first to oppress others, be intolerant and seek political state and you will understand that there isn't much to argue about here.

In that case you are taking "if you want to live in organized societies" as a priory. — stoicHoneyBadger

Well yes. The other alternative is to go live alone in mountains and caves. If someone wants that, it's fine too. But if you want to live among others you have to follow some rules.

Should you be good just to members of your society or should you also be good towards those, who want to destroy your society? — stoicHoneyBadger

If someone wants to destroy your society,i don't see being "good" with him very helpful. Of course the "threats" and the "ways to deal with them" varies in each occasion. But I think it's irrelevant with my point.

My point is that being "good" turns into your own benefit at the end in organized societies. Respecting others, realize that you should help if you want to get help when you need it also, don't harm others as not others to want revenge and harm you back etc etc. These are "morals" that can be provided by simple Logic.

But told you my main doubt is the way that people could be convinced to follow that path.Reasoning all people in the world (especially since the average humanity intellectual level is yet low) just by talking them about Logic without the "laws" of a powerful creature (God) might not be possible at all at the end.

It was the first to achieve political power — Banno

No it wasn't. Every religion(from the very first one) used and achieved political power. They are combined. And humans always used religions for other "purposes". Taking advantage of them.

It wasn't Christianity's privilege at all. It just seems that you find Christianity especially "guilty" for every humanity harm. It has to do with religions in general and not at all with Christianity itself.

Not sure how people can create morals by logic? — stoicHoneyBadger

For me it's not that difficult when you realize that if you want to live in organized societies, it is for your own benefit at the end to behave "good".

But it might not be possible indeed. I'm not very sure about it either.
Well I m sure that simple Logic is really enough for that. But not so sure that Logic will be enough as to "convince" people for that purpose.As to reach to that point.

2. Giving moral guidance in a form of only 10 commandments or 4 noble truth, etc. just printed on a page would not have much interest, so it need to be wrapped in an intriguing story of a hero living out those believes. — stoicHoneyBadger

That's the whole point about religions at the end. That's their goal indeed.

What are religions? Simple human inventions and nothing more.
What people invent? What they need.

And they DID need a moral guidance as to live organized in societies. They still DO need it (the vast majority nowadays are theists) as a source of morals . That's pretty obvious from the fact that humans keep maintaining them and follow them. It's the most sufficient "moral glue" for human societies. So far.

What can replace it? I opened a thread some time ago about that and the sensation I got from it was that there isn't something that is able to replace it, yet at least.
Many had proposed better education. I found that most appropriate too. As one day, people might reach to the point to get their morals simply by Logic. And no need of any God.

“iff it is true that an “I” is not the body in which it resides, then it is also true that all iterations of “I” are not the body in which it resides”. — Mww

That's the whole point it is examined here. Why to make such a fuss about definitions since you also clearly got what he meant from the start??

Not that I disagree with the things you mention but I think that "word definition" game that many TPF members play each time, it is exhausting and many times it turns into ridiculous.

You don't do that often as I have noticed so that goes in general, not for you.
With that way imo we miss totally the purpose of the issue.
Don't get me wrong, I find definitions extremely important but what I find more important is Wording. Express yourself in all ways as to make someone realize what are you talking about. Even if you don't use definitions perfect, express everything that will make your general point here.

I didn't find Akis all definitions of You properly either. But I didn't care at all since at the end I got right what he refers to when he says "body" and "you".

Normal
88%
Paranormal
13% — BARAA

That is "paranormal" for sure.
Clicked on the results and thats what I got. Creepy..

After all, do physical things exist in the absence of minds? — praxis

It depends "who" would replace humans as to observe it I guess.
But I am not sure about the answer either. We, humans, name the world "physical" . But is it indeed or only what we can perceive?Our limited "reality"? And isn't " physical" just one more "human invention"? Named that way due to his limited sensations? I think that might be a discussion for another thread.

But for one thing we can be sure." Something" exists for sure!
For me, the existence of mind is the strongest evidence for humans that there is much more than we see . The way we can be so sure for our mind existence i always found it a really miracle!
That's why I think that physical (body-what we perceive) interacts with something non psychical (the whole "invisible world" that we can't perceive or we perceive it different, limited) . That interaction brings in life Mind.
Maybe Mind is Spirit after all.

That's the million dollar question for me. I can't answer you that, cause I have no idea how it is done.

What is the difference between having a brain and a body but no mind, and having a brain and a body and a mind? — Srap Tasmaner

Well the obvious. Mind.
But my point is that most people from the statement (mind requires brain as to exist) which I also find true. Jump to the conclusion "so mind is brain". That doesn't make sense. It's a logical gap.
For me human brain generates/or interacts with something clearly non psychical (mind). I find it more logical than considering mind, thoughts etc as something material and physical. Thoughts being physical and material seem outrageous to me.
But yet, it's only my opinion and nothing more.

I answered you already. No you won't. But I m not sure I got your point here.

No it isn't. And you won't have it. But that says nothing. Mind requires brain and body for sure. But that doesn't also mean that mind is brain/body. You can't jump to that conclusion.

They stop existing too. But what exactly does that prove?

that although the body is composed of parts, indeed of billions of cells, the self is a simple unity. Which suggests that the self transcends the physical body in being able to create and maintain a sense of continuous existence, while the body itself is subject to constant change. — Wayfarer

Really interesting approach.

Oh OK.I got something totally different then.

So you think that since we can't define the exact words we can't talk about these things at all?
I think it's more like that both persons should clarify their definitions from the beginning and agree on a common base of what they will mean when they will use the word body. And that's it.

I find totally unfair not to be able to talk about such things. With that "word game" we would end up not being able to talk about anything at all,at the end!

Because we don’t have any sense of what “body” means. Or material, or physical. — Xtrix

You mean that probably material world is much different than what we perceive from our senses? So that's why you think the base mind/body is false? Got it right or you meant something else?

But what it amounts to is something like “the mind/ectoplasm problem” — Xtrix

What you mean with ectoplasm?
And if you believe that material world might be more that we can see. ,Why and how can we be sure that what we "call" "perceive" mind is how mind is indeed?That there isn't "more" of it also? Similar to the way that material world might be different from what we perceive.

But since they believe that thoughts are produced by and take place in the brain, they must be material, mustn't they? — Alkis Piskas

For me that's the mistake they make. For me it's not that mind exists on its own. Mind requires for sure brain. Brain (physical) generates something non psychical. Imo at least. Or if not generates, at least interacts for sure with something non-physical.

I can't understand why the materialists from the original view "that mind cannot exist without brain" (which I also find true) jump to the conclusion "so mind is psychical!". There is a huge logical gap here.

Why they can't accept the possibility that physical creates something that it's obvious non psychical!
Instead of that, they find more logical to consider thoughts as material! And I find it totally weird.

The believe that they are physical — Alkis Piskas

That seems so weird to me and I wanted to check that it is the case. How they believe they are physical? Material? Can they "touch" them or what? I could never understand how someone sees thoughts as something material. Especially thoughts. But anyway.

This fact alone, makes me think that I do not belong here! However, I can ignore this because I am here to express my views and exchange views with other thinkers. This pleases me a lot. — Alkis Piskas

Don't worry about it. You aren't the only one who believes thoughts and mind aren't material. I support the same too. And of course we just exchange views here.That majority thinks different says nothing.

even worse, impertinence and vulgar language. — Alkis Piskas

Yeah there are many here who think they own the privilege of the "Absolute Truth" . Even in cases like this, which you can never be sure since science hasn't reached there yet. But they speak as if they have all the answers already. Don't give a fuck about them.

Drop it then. I can't make it any clearer.

"I am", in fact, the emergent continuous output of this body's interactions with its environment. — 180 Proof

And all that interaction you think it leaves that "output" you mentioned the same?? I mean your body continuously interact with the environment. All that interaction and the "feedback" that your body - brain gets, leaves the output still the same? Output = body again then?

If yes I think you should just say "I m my body" then. And end of story.Why you needed to add the environment interaction factor?
Just asking.

I haven't understand this and since you keep following the discussions from the threads you open. If you can save me some time and answer me this. Since I read many posts from your threads but not enough as to clarify this :

Do most people here on TPF agree that thoughts, ideas etc (mind in general) is non psychical? Or the majority believes it belongs to psychical world(material) ?I don't mean if they think that brain is mind or not?Or if thinking takes place in brain.
But to that specific question. About thoughts(mind) and psychical-material.

From the responses you got from all the 3 threads you opened about that issue what you got? I know I m being lazy here but I m curious about what most here believe. But even if you don't respond it's cool.

But otherwise, are there any good resources on how to learn to enjoy those word battles? I do follow them from time to time and feel like einstein when I understand what its all about — Ansiktsburk

Why you need to learn how to enjoy these kind of discussions??You just enjoy them or not simply. Why would you want to force yourself enjoy something that might not like at the end??
You feel inferior when you think you can't participate and you wanna change that or what?? If yes you do very wrong. It's nothing more than a matter of taste. So don't worry at all.

I can read them as a sudoku or a math exercise, just showing off IQ, like — Ansiktsburk

As someone else mentioned (Srap Tasmaner I think) to another thread "Don't believe the hype. Most of us are full of shit"

You cannot GET content!! — schopenhauer1

That's exactly what makes it a NO moral matter at all. Cause you expect a content from a Non existing creature! A 0!You just can't do that. Impossible. So it's totally parents choice. And not a moral issue at all. You just can't accept that simple thing.

However, certainly it is good no one has been harmed, collateral or otherwise. — schopenhauer1

Not even letting kids experience life but to prefer not to start it at all IS bad in my eyes! You deprive them from an amazing experience! Even if you see only suffering in life.

Yep, so you are hanging your argument on this guy? — schopenhauer1

It's just one more reason that cancels your theory. Whether you like it or not.
I presented here many others too:

1.the way you measure harm and happiness
2.the harm you create into already living parents by depriving them the joy of having the kid for shake of the "potential" harm of a non existing creature.
3.the irrational outcome of your theory that is to end humanity existence.
4.that the unborn kid has no choice! So it simply isn't a moral matter for parents!!
5.that the unjust issue that you protest giving to someone life without asking him is equalized for me with the suicide option each individual has.

So please please, don't tell me that I just hang my argument there,when your argument is only one. But you know why you insist so much on that latest argument?? Cause these exact rare cases make the ONLY argument that you keep repeating (the non trivia harm one) totally invalid simply!! That's why you stuck in it! Cause it makes it even more obvious how false it is. It exposes it.

Whether you like it or not your only one argument of non trivial is so weak that could never apply and cover all possible cases. Whether you like it or not! Simply can't.

That's your core argument, is it not? — schopenhauer1

We exchanged all these posts and you still ask me if that's my core argument?? I wrote you for last time above some of my already presented arguments.
Sorry I can't add anything else into that discussion. I feel we keep repeating the same things. It doesn't make sense anymore. So I am out . Thanks for your time.

There is no need for someone's supposed "answer" to this question. — schopenhauer1

So now you say that there is no need for content in your case. But you need a "yes" as to bring someone in life?? So you want it all your way! Cool!
So it's OK to take a "no" answer granted but not OK to take a "yes" for granted. Nice whatever suits your arguments better.

Honestly, why should I care? — schopenhauer1

Don't.

why would you think it's okay to inflict unnecessary, non-trivial harm on another person? — schopenhauer1

Cause that harm that you keep mention might be way less than happy moments. Who told you that the unborn kid wouldn't want to come to life as to even experience that?? You just suppose that it wouldn't cause that's what fit your arguments better. Well no it's not the case at all though.

You STILL have not recognized that no one has a charmed life and lives 90+ years of non-trivial harm. Everyone is harmed by existing. — schopenhauer1

To recognize that?! That existing harms everyone!?!Are you serious really??
No way! I would never recognize such a lame statement. Cause you believe life is an endless suffering that doesn't mean that everyone thinks the same!

And at the very end how the fuck you know that in all humanity existence there was not even one person who had that kind of charming life?!?!
The most possible thing is that there have been more than one!! It is statistical impossible not even one to existed!
And I told you that I don't even support my arguments in that extreme cases(which STILL exist though)!!

That is enough to make AN case true if one agrees with the idea of not inflicting unnecessary non-trivial harm on others' behalf. — schopenhauer1

It's only enough in your mind.

when empirically and anecdotally, I have never seen or heard such a thing. — schopenhauer1

It's statistically impossible as not even one case(for sure not only one) to exist throughout humanity's history.
And guess what! Even that rare cases make your theory totally invalid!
Not only that of course, but one more reason that make your position irrational.

Yes and I explained how harms are morally relevant while bringing-happiness is really not. — schopenhauer1

You explained and I didn't agree at all. So let's drop it.

it is still wrong because it is a decision for someone else´s life — Antinatalist

Made by an already living creature towards a "0",non existing one. And which you can never be sure (even if you had the chance) that" kid's answer" would be always a "no".

Anyway as I told you I almost played all my cards here and feel like I just repeating same things. And in general spamming is one of the main things that bothers me in TPF. So I don't want to feel that I do the same.
As I told you I respect your opinion even if I totally disagree and I depart peacefully.

So this is an important point and why I'm debating! What does it matter if a person who doesn't exist doesn't experience happiness?! Are you not seeing this? What does seem to matter is that someone will not suffer non-trivial and unnecessary harms. This is the basic asymmetry between happiness and harm for something that does not (but could) exist. — schopenhauer1

But come on my friend, we did had that conversation at previous pages. The "no happiness experience" values nothing to you compared to potential harm. And with antinatalism it's like you always take for granted that "the unborn kid's" answer would be always a "no" for life! I really can't accept that.

If you think that there is no certainty that people will have non-trivial harm, indeed we can stop debating because I think you are being ridiculous. No one leads a charmed life, and if that is a possibility, and we are speaking of likelihoods, how likely is a charmed life .0001 or something like that. You would be intellectually dishonest if you were to hang your argument on the idea that almost all people born will most likely live a charmed life. — schopenhauer1

So far I respected you. Even if your arguments sometimes sounded ridiculous to me,i didn't say anything. So don't make me change my mind about you. You talked with many people at this thread so I guess it's normal not to remember what we talked about. Go and check (if you care of course) and you will see that we went through all these issues again!

At the bottom line, the main thing is that you Antinatalists wanna make a rule that :
No kids should be born at whatever circumstance!
Mine is that you can NEVER apply such a rule in all cases! It's impossible and irrational! I don't even support as you noticed that people should have always kids!
I just say that every case is different and you can never make a rule about it!

If your view sounds more fair and rational than mine. It's fine. I don't have anything to add.

The only thing close to you trying to justify this is that you think that there is a real possibility for a charmed life (a life without non-trivial harm). — schopenhauer1

Again and for last time : I think very very possible a life with muchhhh happiness and little harm(not 0 harm) !
But even with the 0.001 possibility that someone's life harm is only death, your theory doesn't include it at all! A tiny possibility is still always a possibility! But I don't hang my arguments on it as you see.

You measure harm and suffering always heavier! And you see life as an "endless suffering field" as you mentioned.
Told you then that this seems to be the "root" of our disagreement. Cause I don't see life at all the way you do!
Again I repeated it for last time as not to think that I avoid your questions.

I think I can speak roughly for the person above by saying we’re not looking at it purely from the parents perspective. The thing is neither are we looking at it purely from the (possible) child’s perspective. — I like sushi

Exactly.

That is just an absurd statement. — Antinatalist

No it isn't. It's a statement that you simply can't deny.

About utilitarianism, your arguments/reasoning seem strongly as utilitarian. — Antinatalist

I ensure you I m not at all. Whether you believe it or not.

if you look the act of having a child only at parent's perspective, you use the unborn potential person as a mean - not an end itself. — Antinatalist

The thing is that you look it only at the "unborn kid's" perspective! And don't care at all about parent's perspective.

The contention isn't this but whether because something doesn't exist yet, this means you can do anything you want because they don't exist yet. That is exactly what you were implying, don't try to move it to some non-controversial point that the decision is in the parents' hands. — schopenhauer1

Wait wait. I don't try to change anything here. Once again : Since something doesn't exist wrote so many times, that then it has absolutely no choice! So not being able to take his answer whether it wants to be born or not doesn't make immoral at all the parents decision to have it! It is totally on parents hands! Since it isn't alive has simply no say on that. What exactly I changed from my original view? Can't follow you here.

So why is it permissible to foist non-trivial, unnecessary (doesn't need to happen) harms/suffering on a future person's behalf? You still haven't addressed this but only retreated to a non-controversial points that it is the parents' decision. — schopenhauer1

So again we will have the same conversation we had 2-3 pages before??I wrote you there all my argument about suffering and happiness. And how I can't accept the way you measure them, and how we think so different that life is a field of suffering etc etc. So you want us to repeat all that again?? Cause it's a potential harm that you can't be sure and the happiness that will bring might be 10times more for example! I just write it again as you not to think that I avoid your question.

Can we agree that all life has non-trivial harms? — schopenhauer1

You keep insisting on that cause you wanna make a certain outcome out of this! That harm in some lives might be only death (when they end) and nothing else! So you still want these lives not to exist! No your trivial harm argument can never cover all cases. As much hard as you try it simply can't!

The fact that it is indeed a decision for someone else should mean more care is taken here, so our are only strengthening my point. — schopenhauer1

So what?? Your view is that in all circumstances that decision should be "no"! And I don't agree at all! It depends on the each circumstance individual and you can never make a" rule " that you always have to decide no in having kids. Sounds totally irrational to me!

You try to gain points here for your arguments jumping to irrelevant conclusions. You don't seem the type of person, as I read other posts you make in general, who would do that on purpose.
But that's how it seems to me here. No your point doesn't get any stronger at all from what I claim. It's totally different.

If existed before told you I would have to seriously reconsider It.I might end up to the same conclusion again but for sure I would reconsider also the "circumstances" these unborn kids "exist in" and what they are.
But since I don't believe they exist "somewhere else" before yes it doesn't matter at all.

And thus, as you see procreation does affect someone in the future. If you can agree that all life has some non-trivial harm, then I don't see how it cannot (does not) follow here: — schopenhauer1

How this negates my previous claim? Did I ever mention that parents decision won't affect their future creatures kids? I just say that it is a decision totally in parents hands. And that unborn kid has simple no say on that! So there is nothing immoral in having kids (except in the disease cases we already discussed). Why you see a contradiction here?

When you know the outcome for sure then yes it is wrong to have kids.
But that can't be applied in every situation! With the fear of the potential harm that might happen (or might not) to be deprived of having kids.
As I like sushi mentioned we can't fear of the potential suffering in every step we make, so at the end not making it at all!!

The comparison I made was to get the point across that we cannot fear causing ‘suffering’ every step in our lives. Every step in your life will cause ‘suffering’ some where. By this logic killing all humans will end their ‘suffering’ yet you’re not for murder … guess you’d have another name for it instead, maybe ‘avoiding collateral damage’? — I like sushi

It seems exactly the same for me too. Just changing names as to present a situation like an unselfish, moral act etc. The outcome remains the same and doesn't seem logical at all.

What if you KNEW that the future child would be born into horrible circumstances, like 100% right after birth. Does this fact not affect anything? Your answer will tell me a lot. — schopenhauer1

You mean like having a disease and be 100% sure that my kid will be born with the same horrible disease also? Did I get it right or you mean something else?

If I get it right. So for sure no. You shouldn't have kids. Cause you ALREADY know the outcome! You know for sure that your kid will have a terrible disease. So you already know it and despite that you condemn it into suffering(or a life with much more suffering than happiness at least) . Nope that isn't right at all! But are we only talking about such cases here with antinatalism?

It would put the issue in a whole different base for sure. Don't know if I would still agree on that but for sure I would rethink it and reconsider it.
But as I told you again imo I don't think they exist "somewhere else" already.

As you don't seem capable of understanding this, imagine someone cannot give consent to sex - does that make sex with them ok? — Bartricks

What you don't seem to understand is that in 1st case that "that someone" is ALIVE
2nd case "that someone" is 0.NOT existing. Nothing.

If you can't understand and see the difference here I don't have anything else to add.